'Why are Remainers engaged in this pretence that people did not know what they were voting for? We even had WW3 being discussed.
Every argument was made - immigration, contributions, welfare access, economics, the future of the UK - and the bleakest of scenarios was portrayed and yet people weighed it up and voted to go.'
You missed out the fact that on numerous occasions that the Prime Minister & Chancellor confirmed that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the Single market.
I am no expert, but I am guessing 1) they have already started so probably isn't a shock to the enemy and 2) because there are huge number of civilians.
It's a shame there's isn't a way posters can be obliged to read or listen to the links they post before they post them. I've just wasted 20 minutes listening to a complete load of BULLSHIT posted by PLATO which wouldn't pass muster as spam.
God someone is still reading Plato's ramblings! I'm impressed
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
"Why didn't Cameron warn us" whine the Brexiteers.
Umm...
I don't remember Cameron saying he would be the cause of the mess by lying in government leaflets and lying about invoking A50 immediately.
Why has this 'invoke Article 50 immediately' suddenly become a Leave grievance? The pledge was unanimously condemned by Leave throughout the campaign because it would rush through Brexit and make a pig's ear of it.
Right so - if you go by polling then Hillary has this locked up.
But on PURE racial demographics, the increase in the white vote is swamping any hispanic increase, and AA is down - which should be positive for Trump. Polling normally works best (I know, I know) - but the pollsters managed to bugger up Michigan a treat (Dem Primary, Clinton about 20 pts ahead) and where there was a clash of demographics vs polling - well it normally indicated some more favourable numbers to either Hillary or Bernie (GOP primary very white) than the pure polling indicated.
Some of the polls certainly have to be wrong, and Hillary is the likely winner...
Its all a bit of a muddle though, and we will find out on the 8th what has and is ACTUALLY happening !
its a big increase wirh white women though.
Looking at the vote in North Carolina, for example, University of Florida political scientist Michael McDonald said that the women’s vote had increased 11.8% over the 2012 totals. That would aid Clinton, based on her fairly strong standing among women. Yet at the same time the men’s vote had increased by 10.4%, McDonald said. That would accrue to Trump. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-early-voting-20161104-story.html
Maybe that difference would be worth 0.5% on Clinton's lead?
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
Even leaving side the potential loss of tax income from the short-run hit of Brexit (which by itself could more than wipe out the whole windfall), it is reasonable to wonder - given the lengthy list of causes from farmers and fisherfolk through academia, museums, Wales, Cornwall etc. all lining up for their payments - and the promises of financial support clearly being offered to big business to keep them here - whether there will be even a penny left over for the NHS?
Right so - if you go by polling then Hillary has this locked up.
But on PURE racial demographics, the increase in the white vote is swamping any hispanic increase, and AA is down - which should be positive for Trump. Polling normally works best (I know, I know) - but the pollsters managed to bugger up Michigan a treat (Dem Primary, Clinton about 20 pts ahead) and where there was a clash of demographics vs polling - well it normally indicated some more favourable numbers to either Hillary or Bernie (GOP primary very white) than the pure polling indicated.
Some of the polls certainly have to be wrong, and Hillary is the likely winner...
Its all a bit of a muddle though, and we will find out on the 8th what has and is ACTUALLY happening !
its a big increase wirh white women though.
No it isn't, since early voting became more accessible women tend to vote early more than men. This year is not really much different. In Florida it's 56.5% Female, which is totally normal.
Right so - if you go by polling then Hillary has this locked up.
But on PURE racial demographics, the increase in the white vote is swamping any hispanic increase, and AA is down - which should be positive for Trump. Polling normally works best (I know, I know) - but the pollsters managed to bugger up Michigan a treat (Dem Primary, Clinton about 20 pts ahead) and where there was a clash of demographics vs polling - well it normally indicated some more favourable numbers to either Hillary or Bernie (GOP primary very white) than the pure polling indicated.
Some of the polls certainly have to be wrong, and Hillary is the likely winner...
Its all a bit of a muddle though, and we will find out on the 8th what has and is ACTUALLY happening !
its a big increase wirh white women though.
No it isn't, since early voting became more accessible women tend to vote early more than men. This year is not radically different.
Why don't US polling stations generally open in the evenings? Their work culture is more long-hours than ours, and surely there must be tons of people who don't make it back home in time to go out and vote by 7pm?
I'm still waiting for the higher interest rates that nice Mr Osborne promised me. Was he telling porkies?
You got massive inflation. What more do you want?
What massive inflation rate? Just puerile* nonsense. Inflation is 1% CPI and 2% RPI.
*childishly silly and immature
An awful lot of things are about to go up by 15%, which I don't think can be described as insignificant. Fuel is already on the way; food prices will be rising by Christmas. As it happens I am about to commit to replacing my kitchen and the cost of most appliances rises by about 15% for orders placed after 14 November.
There's a lag in exchange rates feeding through to prices, because companies hold stock, hedg There's also a lag before prices feed through to reported CPI and of course the reports are themselves made well in arrears.
Edited extra bit: and, no, you didn't miss it. I'm fairly open-minded about how things go, beyond the necessity of respecting the result and my strong preference to leave the customs union.
And this is the point made earlier
Leaving the customs union will piss off half the Leavers
Staying in will piss off the other half.
That's why they are terrified of having the debate about what Brexit means. The uneasy coalition that voted out all thought they were getting different things, and the Brexiteers need to keep stringing as many of them along for as long as possible before they realise how badly they were duped
Driving along Kent’s road a week ago and reflecting on those of Essex, I wondered about the effect of leaving the Customs Union. How many of those Hungarian, Polish, Spanish etc lorries will still be coming across the Channel if we do leave the Union. And if they are all going to be customs checked, how will the border staff cope? Same applies in reverse?
Will have words with Kentish-men border-security. No freckin' checks on northerners migrating via Essex...!
Every day in the election campaign she will be asked 'what do you mean by the best deal for Britain?' What does that mean?
And the follow up question "Are you suggesting your opponents would pursue the worst deal for Britain?"
It wouldn't survive the first day of a GE campaign.
A manifesto with 24 blank pages where the policies should be.
Carnage.
In line with the views expressed by the voters of this country we will seek control of immigration going forward. We also recognise the importance of trade and will seek access to the European market on the best possible terms. Of course, any negotiation involves two parties and we look forward to working with our European partners in the the spirit of constructive engagement.
Next question please.
What are the best possible terms? Will you sacrifice jobs and growth to control immigration from the EU? Will pensioners living in Spain currently have to come home? And so on.
Any negotiation involves two parties and I am not in a position to comment on where the EU is prepared to compromise in order to establish a positive long-term cooperation with the United Kingdom. I can pledge to the voters that we will achieve the best possible outcome.
The problem with "I can pledge to the voters that we will achieve the best possible outcome." is that the 'best possible outcome" is highly dependent on the perspective of the viewer. Worse, that perspective has been corrupted by the highly divergent and incompatible claims of the various leave campaigns.
It is going to be a very hard sell, and she will have to expend a large amount of political capital that she might not have, even with Labour's problems.
I am no expert, but I am guessing 1) they have already started so probably isn't a shock to the enemy and 2) because there are huge number of civilians.
Not to mention the attack involves several different nation states and competing local armies, which have to not only be coordinated but also persuaded not to shoot at each other too much for the duration of the offensive. This isn't really the kind of thing you can do in secret.
In the meantime Teresa May on the way to India to promote UK PLC. Getting on with the real job
Not if she keeps penalising visa applications from rich Indian students.
How the government hasn't differentiated between proper students and 'students' is beyond me.
According to Sunil and Stodge East London is still awash with fake 'colleges'.
It's a big money making industry with ties into "real" universities that might surprise you.
The biggest part of the fake student racket isn't the one that don't exist, where the occasional fool turns up and wonders why there are no classes.. it is the "summer schools" run on the premises of real universities. Who take the money for the use of their facilities, and the implicit use of their "name" and ask no questions... Such outfits exist everywhere - even at the very top universities.
The thing about many academics, I have found, is that that they they have strong, unwavering principles of the highest standard. The only question is how long do you wish to rent those principles for, and are you paying cash or cheque?
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
Even leaving side the potential loss of tax income from the short-run hit of Brexit (which by itself could more than wipe out the whole windfall), it is reasonable to wonder - given the lengthy list of causes from farmers and fisherfolk through academia, museums, Wales, Cornwall etc. all lining up for their payments - and the promises of financial support clearly being offered to big business to keep them here - whether there will be even a penny left over for the NHS?
"Why didn't Cameron warn us" whine the Brexiteers.
Umm...
I don't remember Cameron saying he would be the cause of the mess by lying in government leaflets and lying about invoking A50 immediately.
Why has this 'invoke Article 50 immediately' suddenly become a Leave grievance? The pledge was unanimously condemned by Leave throughout the campaign because it would rush through Brexit and make a pig's ear of it.
I think they're starting to worry that if the lever doesn't get pulled soon, it's not going to get pulled at all. FWIW, I think they'd be right to be worried.
I'm not sure which of Osborne's bribes for votes was more damaging in socioeconomic terms - subsidising house prices or triple lock pensions.
' The "triple-lock" on state pensions - which has protected the incomes of the older generation since 2010 - should be scrapped, a committee of MPs has said. '
Very unfair. The triple lock's slowly returning the state pension to the value vs. other peoples' incomes it had in around 1980. The earnings basis was abolished then and Thatcher started the process of privatising pension provision ... as far as she could get away with.
Don't blame pensioners - or baby boomers - for stupidities like 20x house price inflation in the last 60 years (relative to the RPI) and the absurd public sector pensions paid to a portion of baby boomers and older folk now in their late 70s.
I believe the coalition took legal advice on defaulting on some public sector pensions and was rightly told: don't. So now it's focussing on a softer target; i.e., those without gold-plated pensions who'll depend almost entirely on an inadequate state pension plus whatever they can bring in from working beyond retirement age.
Americans get a more generous pension; i.e., 'social security' and I haven't heard Trump or HRC propose to privatise/cut it. The UK accounts, pensions paid out minus contributions coming in, are in surplus.
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Gove said explicitly that in the event of a leave vote the U.K. would stay within the European free trade zone.
Which is not the same as the Customs Union or Single Market. What he actually said was that there's free trade across all of Europe between Iceland (not in the Customs Union) to Turkey (not in the Single Market). That we would get a free trade deal.
Mr. Dawning, the Indian Grand Prix was pretty short-lived. That was a good thing, because the track was arguably the worst ever designed.
However, the reasoning was effectively bureaucratic. The Indian authorities wanted to charge F1 teams income tax (at 1/20 the normal rate because it was one race out of about 20) and this bureaucratic nonsense did not endear them to the teams. [There may have been more red tape making logistics tricky too].
Mr. Urquhart, timing probably makes sense. By going for Raqqa as Iraqi forces go for Mosul, ISIS has to fight on two fronts and Mosul can't reinforce Raqqa, nor Raqqa reinforce Mosul.
Interesting example. I suspect talk of trade deals with India is a mere distraction ploy - a chimera that shouldn't detain us.
My post re Bill Mitchell has been eaten - I suggest anyone using the polls to guide their betting checks out his Twitter feed.
He's reading the internals of every one. You can disagree with his analysis - but he's posting the data re weightings.
What Bill Mitchell is doing is not understanding how weighting is supposed to work. The weights used might well be wrong but pointing out differences between polls is just stupid.
Why not trigger Article 50, and then we can discuss our negotiating tactics if you really want to put us at a disadvantage? It has the advantage of being logical. But I suppose the die-hard Remainers have lost their critical faculties.
"Why didn't Cameron warn us" whine the Brexiteers.
Umm...
I don't remember Cameron saying he would be the cause of the mess by lying in government leaflets and lying about invoking A50 immediately.
Why has this 'invoke Article 50 immediately' suddenly become a Leave grievance? The pledge was unanimously condemned by Leave throughout the campaign because it would rush through Brexit and make a pig's ear of it.
It shows that Cameron was lying.
Something the Continuity Osbornes don't wish to admit.
It also encourages the sense of betrayal and fear that democracy is about to be overturned which some people have.
It thus has long term damage in the trust of government within this country.
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
Even leaving side the potential loss of tax income from the short-run hit of Brexit (which by itself could more than wipe out the whole windfall), it is reasonable to wonder - given the lengthy list of causes from farmers and fisherfolk through academia, museums, Wales, Cornwall etc. all lining up for their payments - and the promises of financial support clearly being offered to big business to keep them here - whether there will be even a penny left over for the NHS?
We make a NET contribution to the EU.
Just a few things our net contribution has paid for.... Our businesses have access to the single market the world has ever created, and the largest pool of labour. It is what has helped staff our NHS, attract inward investment from the likes of Nissan, and provided us with high skilled staff without having to pay to train them. It has provided us with Passporting rights for our financial industry and helped build London to be the greatest city on the planet at the heart of Europe.
Nothing like a bit of good old fashioned intimidation. Maybe they could play a recording of jackboots while they're at it..
The Remainers tried the same tactic of course - outside BoJo's house IIRC.
No, that was just good natured fun!
Captain Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshall Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies. General Melchett: Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war! Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies... General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!
Mr. P, Mr. Watson wants to know what the deal is before it's negotiated. One suspects he's mischief-making, rather than someone who doesn't understand the direction in which time flows.
Also, Cameron is to blame. He forbade any contingency planning in case of a Leave victory, despite the polls being neck-and-neck. It was an active dereliction of duty.
There was nothing to stop the leading leavers, particularly on the Tory side who knew they would inherit the job if they won, sitting down and putting together an outline proposal and plan for leaving the EU. They didn't, because they knew that this would have made winning the vote less rather than more likely.
They didn't have the time to do a detailed plan. They did do an outline plan, but since they haven't become the government they cannot implement it.
Boris didn't have time, for sure, since he was a leaver with only a few days' track record when the campaign started.
The rest of them, however - most had been frothing and fuming about the EU and our need to leave for decades. It beggars belief that at no state did any of them indulge their fantasies at a more rational level by sitting down and thinking out how we might go about it, including the many practical and political obstacles that would always make the ultimate 'just walk away and show them the finger' Brexit unrealistic in the real world.</blockquote
It really is mind boggling that after all the years of advocating leaving the EU there is so little evidence of any sort of plan as to how we do it and overcome the considerable obstacles. Indicative of the calibre of politicians we are discussing unfortunately. You would have thought that they could see that some sort of planning was essential to prevent the sort of situation we are in now. The truth, I suspect, is that they can't agree amongst themselves on what to do next.
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
Even leaving side the potential loss of tax income from the short-run hit of Brexit (which by itself could more than wipe out the whole windfall), it is reasonable to wonder - given the lengthy list of causes from farmers and fisherfolk through academia, museums, Wales, Cornwall etc. all lining up for their payments - and the promises of financial support clearly being offered to big business to keep them here - whether there will be even a penny left over for the NHS?
We make a NET contribution to the EU.
Just a few things our net contribution has paid for.... Our businesses have access to the single market the world has ever created, and the largest pool of labour. It is what has helped staff our NHS, attract inward investment from the likes of Nissan, and provided us with high skilled staff without having to pay to train them. It has provided us with Passporting rights for our financial industry and helped build London to be the greatest city on the planet at the heart of Europe.
Not bad if you ask me.....
And yet some countries get all that and are net beneficiaries from the EU.
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
Even leaving side the potential loss of tax income from the short-run hit of Brexit (which by itself could more than wipe out the whole windfall), it is reasonable to wonder - given the lengthy list of causes from farmers and fisherfolk through academia, museums, Wales, Cornwall etc. all lining up for their payments - and the promises of financial support clearly being offered to big business to keep them here - whether there will be even a penny left over for the NHS?
We make a NET contribution to the EU.
Just a few things our net contribution has paid for.... Our businesses have access to the single market the world has ever created, and the largest pool of labour. It is what has helped staff our NHS, attract inward investment from the likes of Nissan, and provided us with high skilled staff without having to pay to train them. It has provided us with Passporting rights for our financial industry and helped build London to be the greatest city on the planet at the heart of Europe.
Not bad if you ask me.....
I have no problem with you holding that view, I hold a different one. I wish the pre-referendum debate could have been more along those lines rather than the mutual project fear that was actually trotted out.
More immigration. That's what we voted for, right?
Immigration from India of the fill-out-all-the-paperwork-for-white-collar-jobs kind is *at the moment* incredibly restricted. Mandatory health checks, mandatory private health insurance, an effective points based system (your professional qualifications are assessed), signed (legal penalties) statement from the company trying to import you that they have tried to find an EU (giggle) worker to fill the vacancy....
Health insurance is not mandatory. There is no such thing as comprehensive private health insurance in the U.K. (a problem that the likes of rcs100 often miss)
'Migrants do pay an "NHS surcharge" but that's not the same thing at all.
Why not trigger Article 50, and then we can discuss our negotiating tactics if you really want to put us at a disadvantage? It has the advantage of being logical. But I suppose the die-hard Remainers have lost their critical faculties.
I'm sure there's counselling available.
If you want hard Brexit you don't need to worry about negotiating tactics.
It seems Leave (of the non Kipper variety) really want to leave as little as possible, and are relying on Remain supporters to negotiate it and package it up as their victory.
Mr. Dawning, I agree. The Indians are very bureaucratic which is holding them back economically (and why China is and will continue to out-compete them).
It's a shame there's isn't a way posters can be obliged to read or listen to the links they post before they post them. I've just wasted 20 minutes listening to a complete load of BULLSHIT posted by PLATO which wouldn't pass muster as spam.
God someone is still reading Plato's ramblings! I'm impressed
You'd think someone with experience in advertising would be able to filter out nonsense by considering the source....
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
Even leaving side the potential loss of tax income from the short-run hit of Brexit (which by itself could more than wipe out the whole windfall), it is reasonable to wonder - given the lengthy list of causes from farmers and fisherfolk through academia, museums, Wales, Cornwall etc. all lining up for their payments - and the promises of financial support clearly being offered to big business to keep them here - whether there will be even a penny left over for the NHS?
We make a NET contribution to the EU.
Just a few things our net contribution has paid for.... Our businesses have access to the single market the world has ever created, and the largest pool of labour. It is what has helped staff our NHS, attract inward investment from the likes of Nissan, and provided us with high skilled staff without having to pay to train them. It has provided us with Passporting rights for our financial industry and helped build London to be the greatest city on the planet at the heart of Europe.
Not bad if you ask me.....
And yet some countries get all that and are net beneficiaries from the EU.
No other European country has London. In fact many of them are extremely envious of it, and would love to take some of its dynamism.
In the meantime Teresa May on the way to India to promote UK PLC. Getting on with the real job
Not if she keeps penalising visa applications from rich Indian students.
How the government hasn't differentiated between proper students and 'students' is beyond me.
According to Sunil and Stodge East London is still awash with fake 'colleges'.
There are a lot of real colleges, in the sense they have bricks and mortar and small groups smoking outside from time to time. It is long-standing government policy to encourage independent or private operators in the sector. I don't know but I'd be astonished if 99 per cent of teaching is not watching videos of lectures.
The "broad objective" is the best deal for the UK. Beyond that is negotiation.
And if the "best deal" is worse than we have now?
Tough. Leave won, so we are leaving regardless.
If any political party wishes to campaign on a platform of going back into the EU once we have left, then they are welcome to give it a try.
You can be very dismissive of that now but three years into Hard Brexit and who knows. Bear in mind the poll that showed 58% of Leave voters thinking they are going to be better off - Politics changes swiftly these days. Unfortunately I doubt the other 27 would have us back.
Well, economic growth forecasts are rocketing - so perhaps they were right?
Oh, and mortgage rates fell....exports are expanding....the tourist and hospitality sector is thriving..... wages continue to grow much faster than inflation...
If they are right, then Brexiteers will have nothing to worry about, we will all have entered the land of milk and honey.
It's a shame there's isn't a way posters can be obliged to read or listen to the links they post before they post them. I've just wasted 20 minutes listening to a complete load of BULLSHIT posted by PLATO which wouldn't pass muster as spam.
God someone is still reading Plato's ramblings! I'm impressed
You'd think someone with experience in advertising would be able to filter out nonsense by considering the source....
Surely the purpose of working in advertising is to generate nonsense...
I'm not sure which of Osborne's bribes for votes was more damaging in socioeconomic terms - subsidising house prices or triple lock pensions.
' The "triple-lock" on state pensions - which has protected the incomes of the older generation since 2010 - should be scrapped, a committee of MPs has said. '
Very unfair. The triple lock's slowly returning the state pension to the value vs. other peoples' incomes it had in around 1980. The earnings basis was abolished then and Thatcher started the process of privatising pension provision ... as far as she could get away with.
Don't blame pensioners - or baby boomers - for stupidities like 20x house price inflation in the last 60 years (relative to the RPI) and the absurd public sector pensions paid to a portion of baby boomers and older folk now in their late 70s.
I believe the coalition took legal advice on defaulting on some public sector pensions and was rightly told: don't. So now it's focussing on a softer target; i.e., those without gold-plated pensions who'll depend almost entirely on an inadequate state pension plus whatever they can bring in from working beyond retirement age.
Americans get a more generous pension; i.e., 'social security' and I haven't heard Trump or HRC propose to privatise/cut it. The UK accounts, pensions paid out minus contributions coming in, are in surplus.
Triple lock pensions are nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the young of today to current pensioners.
I read the shit Plato posts which is why I keep getting so angry that it is always overblown nonsense at best or libelous easily disprovable lies at worst.
That is actually quite shocking on a number of levels. How did the housekeeper get access to the digital materials she was being asked to print? Either she had full access to the systems, or they were emailing them to her or copying them onto a memory stick (which sounds like more effort than just printing it out themselves).
It's a shame there's isn't a way posters can be obliged to read or listen to the links they post before they post them. I've just wasted 20 minutes listening to a complete load of BULLSHIT posted by PLATO which wouldn't pass muster as spam.
God someone is still reading Plato's ramblings! I'm impressed
You'd think someone with experience in advertising would be able to filter out nonsense by considering the source....
Surely the purpose of working in advertising is to generate nonsense...
...which would leave a moderately acute participant possessing the skills to avoid either his own work or similar work from others...
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
Even leaving side the potential loss of tax income from the short-run hit of Brexit (which by itself could more than wipe out the whole windfall), it is reasonable to wonder - given the lengthy list of causes from farmers and fisherfolk through academia, museums, Wales, Cornwall etc. all lining up for their payments - and the promises of financial support clearly being offered to big business to keep them here - whether there will be even a penny left over for the NHS?
We make a NET contribution to the EU.
Which is already a lot less than £350m, and out of which will have to come the future financial payments to the EU to support Eastern Europe, which look likely, plus any compensation offered to business (whether direct or dressed up as support for training etc.), and a myriad of other cost demands that are likely to arise as we grind slowly towards exit.
I'm on maximum jinx setting - as I have bet £100 on Arsenal to win, have Sanchez as FF captain, have played every gunner and dropped my Spurs players...
I'm still not sure even then I'll have managed to help us avoid a defeat but anyway COYS
As omens go, losing Alli injured in a training accident y'day is bad enough - the fact it means TSE sees Vokes brought in off the bench with his 11 points in to his PB FF team too - really HURTS.
I'm off to hide under the stairs. Perhaps Plato will do the same when Trump loses?
"If you want hard Brexit you don't need to worry about negotiating tactics."
And you think that being forced to reveal your hand in Parliament before negotiations begin is good negotiating tactics?
"I'll ask for £500 but if he offers me £25, I'll take it." You really believe that's a good idea?
A Labour amendment along the lines of "Whatever you ask for must be linked to getting full market access, no matter what," is likely. A pointless request that would guarantee leave in name only.
Cue a chorus of giggles from the six-year-old Remainers.
More immigration. That's what we voted for, right?
Immigration from India of the fill-out-all-the-paperwork-for-white-collar-jobs kind is *at the moment* incredibly restricted. Mandatory health checks, mandatory private health insurance, an effective points based system (your professional qualifications are assessed), signed (legal penalties) statement from the company trying to import you that they have tried to find an EU (giggle) worker to fill the vacancy....
Health insurance is not mandatory. There is no such thing as comprehensive private health insurance in the U.K. (a problem that the likes of rcs100 often miss)
'Migrants do pay an "NHS surcharge" but that's not the same thing at all.
A colleague of mine recently went through this process - where he had to demonstrate that he had purchased private health insurance of a certain level. He was understandably upset - while he was working here, he was still charged NI against his wages.
I read the shit Plato posts which is why I keep getting so angry that it is always overblown nonsense at best or libelous easily disprovable lies at worst.
Just as devil's advocate, isn't the point, however, that this sort of stuff is influencing US voters? The leave campaign was full of overblown nonsense (like that film suggesting that the UK no longer building as many ships as before World War One is down to the EU, or the peace and calm of queue-free post-Brexit A&E) - but nevertheless is relevant as a perspective on the campaign.
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
Even leaving side the potential loss of tax income from the short-run hit of Brexit (which by itself could more than wipe out the whole windfall), it is reasonable to wonder - given the lengthy list of causes from farmers and fisherfolk through academia, museums, Wales, Cornwall etc. all lining up for their payments - and the promises of financial support clearly being offered to big business to keep them here - whether there will be even a penny left over for the NHS?
We make a NET contribution to the EU.
Surely the point being made is that Leave implied the gross amount (£350m a week) would go to the NHS and the government has already promised all manner of client groups that they will still get their EU handouts after Brexit. Unless they have found the magic money tree the NHS won't be seeing anything extra at all at this rate let alone £350m a week.
The problem with the £350m a week for the NHS emblazoned on the bus and leaflets is that undoubtedly swayed votes - it wouldn't have been there if Leave's polling wasn't telling them to give it such a prominent role. Having won by a small margin of 3.8% Leavers have to tie themselves in knots trying to defend it, the alternative being that they have to admit they won by pulling a fast one.
"Why didn't Cameron warn us" whine the Brexiteers.
Umm...
I don't remember Cameron saying he would be the cause of the mess by lying in government leaflets and lying about invoking A50 immediately.
Why has this 'invoke Article 50 immediately' suddenly become a Leave grievance? The pledge was unanimously condemned by Leave throughout the campaign because it would rush through Brexit and make a pig's ear of it.
I think they're starting to worry that if the lever doesn't get pulled soon, it's not going to get pulled at all. FWIW, I think they'd be right to be worried.
Irrespective of whether people support leaving the EU or not the damage done to trust in government and democracy if the Referendum was effectively ignored would be massive.
"If you want hard Brexit you don't need to worry about negotiating tactics."
And you think that being forced to reveal your hand in Parliament before negotiations begin is good negotiating tactics?
"I'll ask for £500 but if he offers me £25, I'll take it." You really believe that's a good idea?
A Labour amendment along the lines of "Whatever you ask for must be linked to getting full market access, no matter what," is likely. A pointless request that would guarantee leave in name only.
Cue a chorus of giggles from the six-year-old Remainers.
Any talk of negotiating tactics is premature when we haven't even discussed what it is we want to achieve. Once we've done that, then it would be reasonable to leave it up to the executive to deliver.
I read the shit Plato posts which is why I keep getting so angry that it is always overblown nonsense at best or libelous easily disprovable lies at worst.
Just as devil's advocate, isn't the point, however, that this sort of stuff is influencing US voters? The leave campaign was full of overblown nonsense (like that film suggesting that the UK no longer building as many ships as before World War One is down to the EU, or the peace and calm of queue-free post-Brexit A&E) - but nevertheless is relevant as a perspective on the campaign.
Plato keeps claiming it is truthful and also it is not paying anywhere near as much outside the social media echo chamber she has constructed for herself so she is over blowing its effect
I read the shit Plato posts which is why I keep getting so angry that it is always overblown nonsense at best or libelous easily disprovable lies at worst.
Just as devil's advocate, isn't the point, however, that this sort of stuff is influencing US voters? The leave campaign was full of overblown nonsense (like that film suggesting that the UK no longer building as many ships as before World War One is down to the EU, or the peace and calm of queue-free post-Brexit A&E) - but nevertheless is relevant as a perspective on the campaign.
I think the brutal point is that if you're slandering legitimate polling companies Mike might soon receive a letter from their lawyers.
In the meantime Teresa May on the way to India to promote UK PLC. Getting on with the real job
Not if she keeps penalising visa applications from rich Indian students.
How the government hasn't differentiated between proper students and 'students' is beyond me.
According to Sunil and Stodge East London is still awash with fake 'colleges'.
It's a big money making industry with ties into "real" universities that might surprise you.
The biggest part of the fake student racket isn't the one that don't exist, where the occasional fool turns up and wonders why there are no classes.. it is the "summer schools" run on the premises of real universities. Who take the money for the use of their facilities, and the implicit use of their "name" and ask no questions... Such outfits exist everywhere - even at the very top universities.
The thing about many academics, I have found, is that that they they have strong, unwavering principles of the highest standard. The only question is how long do you wish to rent those principles for, and are you paying cash or cheque?
"Why didn't Cameron warn us" whine the Brexiteers.
Umm...
I don't remember Cameron saying he would be the cause of the mess by lying in government leaflets and lying about invoking A50 immediately.
Why has this 'invoke Article 50 immediately' suddenly become a Leave grievance? The pledge was unanimously condemned by Leave throughout the campaign because it would rush through Brexit and make a pig's ear of it.
I think they're starting to worry that if the lever doesn't get pulled soon, it's not going to get pulled at all. FWIW, I think they'd be right to be worried.
Irrespective of whether people support leaving the EU or not the damage done to trust in government and democracy if the Referendum was effectively ignored would be massive.
That is actually quite shocking on a number of levels. How did the housekeeper get access to the digital materials she was being asked to print? Either she had full access to the systems, or they were emailing them to her or copying them onto a memory stick (which sounds like more effort than just printing it out themselves).
And access to the SCIF room? Apparently there was a personal PC in there too. Giant security no-no.
I honestly think Hillary didn't give a toss about National Security. It was all too inconvenient for her to comply with. And this is just the stuff we're finding out now. WTF else has gone on?
I read the shit Plato posts which is why I keep getting so angry that it is always overblown nonsense at best or libelous easily disprovable lies at worst.
Just as devil's advocate, isn't the point, however, that this sort of stuff is influencing US voters? The leave campaign was full of overblown nonsense (like that film suggesting that the UK no longer building as many ships as before World War One is down to the EU, or the peace and calm of queue-free post-Brexit A&E) - but nevertheless is relevant as a perspective on the campaign.
To be fair, if I understood the Remain campaign correctly, we would all be eaten by cannibals covered in woad by now.
The whole thing reminded me of 18th Cent elections, frankly. Sadly this did not reach the stage of ... "all kinds of tactics, including Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, touring the streets and, according to the opposition, kissing many voters to induce them to vote for Fox."
"If you want hard Brexit you don't need to worry about negotiating tactics."
And you think that being forced to reveal your hand in Parliament before negotiations begin is good negotiating tactics?
"I'll ask for £500 but if he offers me £25, I'll take it." You really believe that's a good idea?
A Labour amendment along the lines of "Whatever you ask for must be linked to getting full market access, no matter what," is likely. A pointless request that would guarantee leave in name only.
Cue a chorus of giggles from the six-year-old Remainers.
Any talk of negotiating tactics is premature when we haven't even discussed what it is we want to achieve. Once we've done that, then it would be reasonable to leave it up to the executive to deliver.
There's been plenty of talk about what we want to achieve.
One problem is that what people want is likely to be mutually exclusive or impossible.
If the government is then forced into mutually exclusive or impossible negotiating targets then the negotiations will fail.
The Leave campaign explicitly said we would leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the ECJ, end EU contributions and control migration. So where does this confusion come from?
They also explicitly said £350m for the NHS. Then after the vote admitted it was bollocks.
Which of their other explicit statements were false?
Again it was always stated that some of the £350m would go to the NHS and some elsewhere. I've quoted the exact text to you repeatedly so can't be arsed doing it again.
Even leaving side the potential loss of tax income from the short-run hit of Brexit (which by itself could more than wipe out the whole windfall), it is reasonable to wonder - given the lengthy list of causes from farmers and fisherfolk through academia, museums, Wales, Cornwall etc. all lining up for their payments - and the promises of financial support clearly being offered to big business to keep them here - whether there will be even a penny left over for the NHS?
We make a NET contribution to the EU.
Surely the point being made is that Leave implied the gross amount (£350m a week) would go to the NHS and the government has already promised all manner of client groups that they will still get their EU handouts after Brexit. Unless they have found the magic money tree the NHS won't be seeing anything extra at all at this rate let alone £350m a week.
The problem with the £350m a week for the NHS emblazoned on the bus and leaflets is that undoubtedly swayed votes - it wouldn't have been there if Leave's polling wasn't telling them to give it such a prominent role. Having won by a small margin of 3.8% Leavers have to tie themselves in knots trying to defend it, the alternative being that they have to admit they won by pulling a fast one.
As has been mentioned on here many, many times, there were a myriad of reasons people voted the way they did, both for remain and for leave. I think that cud has been well and truly chewed. The result was as it was and was obtained after the 'best' campaign that both sides brought.
I am firmly of the view that the government should have taken sufficient time to formulate a negotiating strategy, then trigger article 50. This is what is happening. Unfortunately, the remainers are trying every trick in the book to thwart triggering Article 50 as this is final.
I can pledge to the voters that we will achieve the best possible outcome.
"Are you saying PM that your opponents in this election would achieve the worst possible outcome? On what basis can you make that claim?"
Carnage
This election is about who you want to lead this country. The team we have put together is wonderful. Mr Corbyn and his team have a track record of [whatever the theme of the day is]. We believe the choice is clear.
May's probably best off not referencing her team. She should keep it to her versus Corbyn. Beyond that comparison the Tories lose their edge very quickly.
She might find a role for Hammond. Otherwise agreed.
You think?
May-v-Corbyn
Hammond-v-McDonnell
Abbot-v-Anyone with a pulse.
Thornberry-v-Anyone even without a pulse.
Griffith-v-anyone who actually believes in defence.
Burgon-v-a tub of lard.
etc etc
I mean, this is a much weaker cabinet than Dave had but jeez....
May towers above Corbyn; Hammond beats McDonnell. Beyond that, the Tories still win, but the standard gets very low very quickly. Best keep them away from the cameras as you can't trust what they will say. Use Boris for internal confidence boosting.
The Tories are unbelievably fortunate that most Labour party members do not need a Labour government or fear a Tory one. If that changes before May calls a general election the political landscape could change very quickly.
I don't think May has actually towered over Corbyn at PMQs and would suggest that he has the measure of her there. No reason to expect that Corbyn will perform well in an election campaign but am far from convinced that May will either!
That is actually quite shocking on a number of levels. How did the housekeeper get access to the digital materials she was being asked to print? Either she had full access to the systems, or they were emailing them to her or copying them onto a memory stick (which sounds like more effort than just printing it out themselves).
Look at this bit, it is unbelievably lax security.
Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.
From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — “collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.
Just how sensitive were the papers Santos presumably handled? The FBI noted Clinton periodically received the Presidential Daily Brief — a top-secret document prepared by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies — via the secure fax.
A 2012 “sensitive” but unclassified e-mail from Hanley to Clinton refers to a fax the staff wanted Clinton “to see before your Netanyahu mtg. Marina will grab for you.”
"If you want hard Brexit you don't need to worry about negotiating tactics."
And you think that being forced to reveal your hand in Parliament before negotiations begin is good negotiating tactics?
"I'll ask for £500 but if he offers me £25, I'll take it." You really believe that's a good idea?
A Labour amendment along the lines of "Whatever you ask for must be linked to getting full market access, no matter what," is likely. A pointless request that would guarantee leave in name only.
Cue a chorus of giggles from the six-year-old Remainers.
Any talk of negotiating tactics is premature when we haven't even discussed what it is we want to achieve. Once we've done that, then it would be reasonable to leave it up to the executive to deliver.
There's been plenty of talk about what we want to achieve.
One problem is that what people want is likely to be mutually exclusive or impossible.
If the government is then forced into mutually exclusive or impossible negotiating targets then the negotiations will fail.
If you ignore the extreme sourverainistes, it seems to me that what we want is everything we have now, plus restrictions on free movement.
At the moment this seems an impossible ask, so to stand a chance of getting it, we need to have a very credible bluff of the hard Brexit option. We achieve this by creating a government department for exiting the EU, by appointing Liam Fox to negotiate new trade deals, and doing everything to create the impression that that's what we're preparing for.
That is actually quite shocking on a number of levels. How did the housekeeper get access to the digital materials she was being asked to print? Either she had full access to the systems, or they were emailing them to her or copying them onto a memory stick (which sounds like more effort than just printing it out themselves).
Look at this bit, it is unbelievably lax security.
Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.
From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — “collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.
Just how sensitive were the papers Santos presumably handled? The FBI noted Clinton periodically received the Presidential Daily Brief — a top-secret document prepared by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies — via the secure fax.
A 2012 “sensitive” but unclassified e-mail from Hanley to Clinton refers to a fax the staff wanted Clinton “to see before your Netanyahu mtg. Marina will grab for you.”
This is gob smacking stuff.
This revelation alone is disqualifying for Clinton. She's an enormous national security risk.
This revelation alone is disqualifying for Clinton. She's an enormous national security risk.
At first I wondered if Santos's role was being misrepresented, but no, it turns out that she really was just the housekeeper. Not only that but anyone in the world could have known about her from a puff piece in the Filipino press.
A few days before his arrival, Mr. Clinton sent word that he wanted to meet the family of the mayordoma (housekeeper) of his Washington DC home — Marina Santos.
Mr. Clinton and his wife Hillary travel extensively because of their jobs, and they entrust their DC home to Marina. They met Marina, who was working part-time in the home of their close friend (a Mr. Jordan), during a reception. They were impressed with her and offered her the job of running their home, which she has been doing, obviously to their satisfaction, for many years now.
Clinton described Marina as the “wonderful woman who runs our home in Washington, without whom Hillary will not be able to serve as Secretary of State.”
"Why didn't Cameron warn us" whine the Brexiteers.
Umm...
I don't remember Cameron saying he would be the cause of the mess by lying in government leaflets and lying about invoking A50 immediately.
Why has this 'invoke Article 50 immediately' suddenly become a Leave grievance? The pledge was unanimously condemned by Leave throughout the campaign because it would rush through Brexit and make a pig's ear of it.
I think they're starting to worry that if the lever doesn't get pulled soon, it's not going to get pulled at all. FWIW, I think they'd be right to be worried.
Irrespective of whether people support leaving the EU or not the damage done to trust in government and democracy if the Referendum was effectively ignored would be massive.
This is true, but from the pro-remain angle the alternative is looking pretty bad too: The populists are currently attacking the separation of powers, and it's not clear where they're going to stop. Give them six inches and they'll take a mile: They just don't believe in constitutional checks on the government. If the moderates could take five inches back it would be worth it, at the cost of leaving an angry one.
That said, in practice they probably can't stop it.
In the meantime Teresa May on the way to India to promote UK PLC. Getting on with the real job
Not if she keeps penalising visa applications from rich Indian students.
How the government hasn't differentiated between proper students and 'students' is beyond me.
According to Sunil and Stodge East London is still awash with fake 'colleges'.
It's a big money making industry with ties into "real" universities that might surprise you.
The biggest part of the fake student racket isn't the one that don't exist, where the occasional fool turns up and wonders why there are no classes.. it is the "summer schools" run on the premises of real universities. Who take the money for the use of their facilities, and the implicit use of their "name" and ask no questions... Such outfits exist everywhere - even at the very top universities.
The thing about many academics, I have found, is that that they they have strong, unwavering principles of the highest standard. The only question is how long do you wish to rent those principles for, and are you paying cash or cheque?
I'm sure you're right.
When I was doing an MPhil (part time) at a certain university, I was fool enough to point out that one "summer school" was a rather indifferent con. At which the senior university don I pointed it out to went postal.
Of course it turned out later that he'd been involved in negotiating the deal for the summer school to use the university. And the fact that he had.... links... to the summer school in question was completely irrelevant. Obviously.
The thing is that few people seem to think these things through. For example, you may remember the noise about the "private school A levels"? The one where certain examining boards were offering Pelebian A-levels for Plebians?
At the same time people were wondering about participation in the high end universities...
Yet they failed to recognise the fact that the academics at said universities have a sideline in working for examining boards. So they (a) knew all along about watered down A levels for the proles, (b) they knew which schools were using them and (c) were making decisions about which pupils from which schools were entering their universities....
I read the shit Plato posts which is why I keep getting so angry that it is always overblown nonsense at best or libelous easily disprovable lies at worst.
Just as devil's advocate, isn't the point, however, that this sort of stuff is influencing US voters? The leave campaign was full of overblown nonsense (like that film suggesting that the UK no longer building as many ships as before World War One is down to the EU, or the peace and calm of queue-free post-Brexit A&E) - but nevertheless is relevant as a perspective on the campaign.
To be fair, if I understood the Remain campaign correctly, we would all be eaten by cannibals covered in woad by now.
The whole thing reminded me of 18th Cent elections, frankly. Sadly this did not reach the stage of ... "all kinds of tactics, including Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, touring the streets and, according to the opposition, kissing many voters to induce them to vote for Fox."
I suppose today that role would fall to Adam Werritty.
I read the shit Plato posts which is why I keep getting so angry that it is always overblown nonsense at best or libelous easily disprovable lies at worst.
Oh, man up. The SNP made a far flimsier case for independence than the stuff Plato finds on Trump/Clinton.
And with that, on a gorgeous autumn day in south Devon, a country walk and a pub lunch beckons.
Play nice. And let me know if Scott_P has the balls to take my gold sovereign bet.... Ooops, forgot. Bots don't bet....
In the last 72 hours Trump is doing events in key states from Florida to Ohio to Iowa to Colorado to Nevada to Pennsylvania and New Hampshire and North Carolina to give himself the broadest possible map to victory. Hillary meanwhile is just campaigning in Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania. As for polling denial RCP today has Clinton's national lead down to just 1. 8% which would make this the closest election since 2000 and Trump is ahead in more swing states than Romney was at this stage.
Team Hillary is in several more states than you name. If I've tallied correctly from the page given by edmundintokyo at the start of this thread, here are the numbers of GOTV events in the next two days by state:
1 Arizona 1 Florida 3 Michigan 1 Nevada 2 New Hampshire 3 North Carolina 1 Ohio 6 Pennsylvania 2 Virginia 3 Wisconsin
Key words 'Team Hillary' i.e. mostly not Hillary herself. Meanwhile Trump is personally doing rally after rally to get his white working class base out to vote, Hillary is relying on the Obamas to get out the African American vote for her who have little enthusiasm for her and whose turnout is generally down on 2012.
So what? Chances are most of Team Hillary are better speakers than the candidate herself. Unless you have any reason to believe the opposite, then for betting purposes we need to look at the whole picture.
I'd suggest the schedule shows they are anxious to tie up Pennsylvania especially -- six events including Joe Biden, Michelle and Barack Obama as well as Chelsea, Bill and Hillary herself.
The fact Hillary is relying on others to do most of her campaigning does not inspire confidence in these crucial final days, it is her on the ballot not them
I read the shit Plato posts which is why I keep getting so angry that it is always overblown nonsense at best or libelous easily disprovable lies at worst.
Just as devil's advocate, isn't the point, however, that this sort of stuff is influencing US voters? The leave campaign was full of overblown nonsense (like that film suggesting that the UK no longer building as many ships as before World War One is down to the EU, or the peace and calm of queue-free post-Brexit A&E) - but nevertheless is relevant as a perspective on the campaign.
To be fair, if I understood the Remain campaign correctly, we would all be eaten by cannibals covered in woad by now.
The whole thing reminded me of 18th Cent elections, frankly. Sadly this did not reach the stage of ... "all kinds of tactics, including Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, touring the streets and, according to the opposition, kissing many voters to induce them to vote for Fox."
I suppose today that role would fall to Adam Werritty.
Ha!
Sadly an age has past. The days when John Wilkes replied "That depends, my lord, on whether I embrace your lordship's principles or your mistress." are long gone. Sadly.
I am rather tempted to setup the Illiberal Party... policies -
i) The abolition of the Commons. It has become fearfully common. ii) The replacement of the House of Lords by a chamber of 300. To be the closest illegitimate descendants of a previous Sovereign. Service would be obligatory, disbarment only for grossly *decent* behaviour in a public place - lunatics and criminals being especially welcome. iii) The Duke of Wellington will be appointed the Master of the Hats. He will judge the head gear of all in public life. Those guilty of wearing a bad hat will be sent to (mis) govern New South Wales, or other suitable places. iv) Port will be the national drink - under heavy penalty for abstaining.
The most accurate US pollster in recent elections just published their poll and it has Trump up by 1%. Given what's happening in the battlegrounds that's not good news for Clinton.
You see some of the analysis we get is based on comparing to 2012 exits, others with Catalist voter files. But the exits are possibly innacurate as Nate Cohn wrote;
For instance that 2012 exit would imply white voters made up less of the electorate than they did of the state demographics in 2012, which is a bit unlikely.
For Nevada the implications are interesting, since it would imply in 2012 Obama got more white dems than is assumed from the exits.
The most accurate US pollster in recent elections just published their poll and it has Trump up by 1%. Given what's happening in the battlegrounds that's not good news for Clinton.
You see some of the analysis we get is based on comparing to 2012 exits, others with Catalist voter files. But the exits are possibibly innacurate as Nate Cohn wrote;
For instance that 2012 exit would imply white voters made up less of the electorate than they did of the state demographics in 2012, which is a bit unlikely.
For Nevada the implications are interesting, since it would imply in 2012 Obama got more white dems than is assumed from the exits.
Many polls have surprising samples - that's why I think it's important to look into them rather than accepting the headline numbers.
The most accurate US pollster in recent elections just published their poll and it has Trump up by 1%. Given what's happening in the battlegrounds that's not good news for Clinton.
It's all margin of error stuff but I get a sense this may be moving Trump's way.
Of course you're right that individual polls are subject to large statistical sampling error. Polling averages are less so. For what it's worth, the 538 (polls only) model currently has Clinton's vote share the same as it was four days ago, Trump's 0.2% higher and Johnson's 0.2% lower.
The most accurate US pollster in recent elections just published their poll and it has Trump up by 1%. Given what's happening in the battlegrounds that's not good news for Clinton.
The most accurate US pollster in recent elections just published their poll and it has Trump up by 1%. Given what's happening in the battlegrounds that's not good news for Clinton.
"Why didn't Cameron warn us" whine the Brexiteers.
Umm...
I don't remember Cameron saying he would be the cause of the mess by lying in government leaflets and lying about invoking A50 immediately.
Why has this 'invoke Article 50 immediately' suddenly become a Leave grievance? The pledge was unanimously condemned by Leave throughout the campaign because it would rush through Brexit and make a pig's ear of it.
I think they're starting to worry that if the lever doesn't get pulled soon, it's not going to get pulled at all. FWIW, I think they'd be right to be worried.
Irrespective of whether people support leaving the EU or not the damage done to trust in government and democracy if the Referendum was effectively ignored would be massive.
This is true, but from the pro-remain angle the alternative is looking pretty bad too: The populists are currently attacking the separation of powers, and it's not clear where they're going to stop. Give them six inches and they'll take a mile: They just don't believe in constitutional checks on the government. If the moderates could take five inches back it would be worth it, at the cost of leaving an angry one.
That said, in practice they probably can't stop it.
Indeed.
The problem is that when trust in the establishment disintegrates the moderate voices lose their credibility and its the extremists who appear to be proven correct.
Now for the moderates to take back those five inches the best thing would be for moderation to be shown to be producing results.
In this case that means democracy being upheld and Britain leaving the EU after sensible negotiations followed by having a constructive relationship with the rEU afterwards.
I read the shit Plato posts which is why I keep getting so angry that it is always overblown nonsense at best or libelous easily disprovable lies at worst.
Just as devil's advocate, isn't the point, however, that this sort of stuff is influencing US voters? The leave campaign was full of overblown nonsense (like that film suggesting that the UK no longer building as many ships as before World War One is down to the EU, or the peace and calm of queue-free post-Brexit A&E) - but nevertheless is relevant as a perspective on the campaign.
To be fair, if I understood the Remain campaign correctly, we would all be eaten by cannibals covered in woad by now.
The whole thing reminded me of 18th Cent elections, frankly. Sadly this did not reach the stage of ... "all kinds of tactics, including Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, touring the streets and, according to the opposition, kissing many voters to induce them to vote for Fox."
I suppose today that role would fall to Adam Werritty.
Ha!
Sadly an age has past. The days when John Wilkes replied "That depends, my lord, on whether I embrace your lordship's principles or your mistress." are long gone. Sadly.
I am rather tempted to setup the Illiberal Party... policies -
i) The abolition of the Commons. It has become fearfully common. ii) The replacement of the House of Lords by a chamber of 300. To be the closest illegitimate descendants of a previous Sovereign. Service would be obligatory, disbarment only for grossly *decent* behaviour in a public place - lunatics and criminals being especially welcome. iii) The Duke of Wellington will be appointed the Master of the Hats. He will judge the head gear of all in public life. Those guilty of wearing a bad hat will be sent to (mis) govern New South Wales, or other suitable places. iv) Port will be the national drink - under heavy penalty for abstaining.
Will the new Royal Gout Hospital be built under PFI?
Comments
'Why are Remainers engaged in this pretence that people did not know what they were voting for? We even had WW3 being discussed.
Every argument was made - immigration, contributions, welfare access, economics, the future of the UK - and the bleakest of scenarios was portrayed and yet people weighed it up and voted to go.'
You missed out the fact that on numerous occasions that the Prime Minister & Chancellor confirmed that leaving the EU would also mean leaving the Single market.
God someone is still reading Plato's ramblings! I'm impressed
He's reading the internals of every one. You can disagree with his analysis - but he's posting the data re weightings.
Gives civilians a chance to leave and the enemy to surrender. Also psychological warfare.
https://twitter.com/michaelpdeacon/status/747000584226607104
Yet at the same time the men’s vote had increased by 10.4%, McDonald said. That would accrue to Trump.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clinton-early-voting-20161104-story.html
Maybe that difference would be worth 0.5% on Clinton's lead?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/05/the-early-vote-scenario-is-by-no-means-uniformly-good-for-hillary-clinton/
See also Nicola Sturgeon and the Zoomers
Time Will have words with Kentish-men border-security. No freckin' checks on northerners migrating via Essex...!
With the attendant anti-working class movement supporting it - "the locals aren't willing to do the work".
The biggest part of the fake student racket isn't the one that don't exist, where the occasional fool turns up and wonders why there are no classes.. it is the "summer schools" run on the premises of real universities. Who take the money for the use of their facilities, and the implicit use of their "name" and ask no questions... Such outfits exist everywhere - even at the very top universities.
The thing about many academics, I have found, is that that they they have strong, unwavering principles of the highest standard. The only question is how long do you wish to rent those principles for, and are you paying cash or cheque?
Don't blame pensioners - or baby boomers - for stupidities like 20x house price inflation in the last 60 years (relative to the RPI) and the absurd public sector pensions paid to a portion of baby boomers and older folk now in their late 70s.
I believe the coalition took legal advice on defaulting on some public sector pensions and was rightly told: don't. So now it's focussing on a softer target; i.e., those without gold-plated pensions who'll depend almost entirely on an inadequate state pension plus whatever they can bring in from working beyond retirement age.
Americans get a more generous pension; i.e., 'social security' and I haven't heard Trump or HRC propose to privatise/cut it. The UK accounts, pensions paid out minus contributions coming in, are in surplus.
Why not trigger Article 50, and then we can discuss our negotiating tactics if you really want to put us at a disadvantage? It has the advantage of being logical. But I suppose the die-hard Remainers have lost their critical faculties.
I'm sure there's counselling available.
http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/
Something the Continuity Osbornes don't wish to admit.
It also encourages the sense of betrayal and fear that democracy is about to be overturned which some people have.
It thus has long term damage in the trust of government within this country.
Just a few things our net contribution has paid for....
Our businesses have access to the single market the world has ever created, and the largest pool of labour. It is what has helped staff our NHS, attract inward investment from the likes of Nissan, and provided us with high skilled staff without having to pay to train them. It has provided us with Passporting rights for our financial industry and helped build London to be the greatest city on the planet at the heart of Europe.
Not bad if you ask me.....
General Melchett: Filthy hun weasels, fighting their dirty underhand war!
Captain Darling: And fortunately, one of our spies...
General Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes risking life and limb for Blighty!
'Migrants do pay an "NHS surcharge" but that's not the same thing at all.
It seems Leave (of the non Kipper variety) really want to leave as little as possible, and are relying on Remain supporters to negotiate it and package it up as their victory.
You are not permitted to post comments/tweets that imply pollsters are 'playing games' with their polls.
A cursory check shows this is part of normal weighting procedure as other posters have consistently informed you
;-)
If they are right, then Brexiteers will have nothing to worry about, we will all have entered the land of milk and honey.
The whys and wherefores don't change that.
I'm off to hide under the stairs. Perhaps Plato will do the same when Trump loses?
"If you want hard Brexit you don't need to worry about negotiating tactics."
And you think that being forced to reveal your hand in Parliament before negotiations begin is good negotiating tactics?
"I'll ask for £500 but if he offers me £25, I'll take it." You really believe that's a good idea?
A Labour amendment along the lines of "Whatever you ask for must be linked to getting full market access, no matter what," is likely. A pointless request that would guarantee leave in name only.
Cue a chorus of giggles from the six-year-old Remainers.
Or someone who moderates PB without posing 'normal' comments ?
Or are you someone who's taken the name PBModerator for a joke ?
The problem with the £350m a week for the NHS emblazoned on the bus and leaflets is that undoubtedly swayed votes - it wouldn't have been there if Leave's polling wasn't telling them to give it such a prominent role. Having won by a small margin of 3.8% Leavers have to tie themselves in knots trying to defend it, the alternative being that they have to admit they won by pulling a fast one.
I honestly think Hillary didn't give a toss about National Security. It was all too inconvenient for her to comply with. And this is just the stuff we're finding out now. WTF else has gone on?
The whole thing reminded me of 18th Cent elections, frankly. Sadly this did not reach the stage of ... "all kinds of tactics, including Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, touring the streets and, according to the opposition, kissing many voters to induce them to vote for Fox."
One problem is that what people want is likely to be mutually exclusive or impossible.
If the government is then forced into mutually exclusive or impossible negotiating targets then the negotiations will fail.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/11/04/facebook_is_fueling_an_international_boom_in_pro_trump_propaganda.html
I am firmly of the view that the government should have taken sufficient time to formulate a negotiating strategy, then trigger article 50. This is what is happening. Unfortunately, the remainers are trying every trick in the book to thwart triggering Article 50 as this is final.
Look at this bit, it is unbelievably lax security.
Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF (sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.
From within the SCIF, Santos — who had no clearance — “collected documents from the secure facsimile machine for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.
Just how sensitive were the papers Santos presumably handled? The FBI noted Clinton periodically received the Presidential Daily Brief — a top-secret document prepared by the CIA and other US intelligence agencies — via the secure fax.
A 2012 “sensitive” but unclassified e-mail from Hanley to Clinton refers to a fax the staff wanted Clinton “to see before your Netanyahu mtg. Marina will grab for you.”
This is gob smacking stuff.
At the moment this seems an impossible ask, so to stand a chance of getting it, we need to have a very credible bluff of the hard Brexit option. We achieve this by creating a government department for exiting the EU, by appointing Liam Fox to negotiate new trade deals, and doing everything to create the impression that that's what we're preparing for.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkKqbnCZAyU
http://www.philstar.com/newsmakers/630202/why-clintons-life-virtually-run-pinoys
A few days before his arrival, Mr. Clinton sent word that he wanted to meet the family of the mayordoma (housekeeper) of his Washington DC home — Marina Santos.
Mr. Clinton and his wife Hillary travel extensively because of their jobs, and they entrust their DC home to Marina. They met Marina, who was working part-time in the home of their close friend (a Mr. Jordan), during a reception. They were impressed with her and offered her the job of running their home, which she has been doing, obviously to their satisfaction, for many years now.
Clinton described Marina as the “wonderful woman who runs our home in Washington, without whom Hillary will not be able to serve as Secretary of State.”
Battleground poll: NV. Pattern in "neighbors" question continues. "Shy Trump voter" more than a theory.
Results: https://t.co/6TorPnOEUN https://t.co/udiByrJANF
That said, in practice they probably can't stop it.
Of course it turned out later that he'd been involved in negotiating the deal for the summer school to use the university. And the fact that he had.... links... to the summer school in question was completely irrelevant. Obviously.
The thing is that few people seem to think these things through. For example, you may remember the noise about the "private school A levels"? The one where certain examining boards were offering Pelebian A-levels for Plebians?
At the same time people were wondering about participation in the high end universities...
Yet they failed to recognise the fact that the academics at said universities have a sideline in working for examining boards. So they (a) knew all along about watered down A levels for the proles, (b) they knew which schools were using them and (c) were making decisions about which pupils from which schools were entering their universities....
And with that, on a gorgeous autumn day in south Devon, a country walk and a pub lunch beckons.
Play nice. And let me know if Scott_P has the balls to take my gold sovereign bet.... Ooops, forgot. Bots don't bet....
Sadly an age has past. The days when John Wilkes replied "That depends, my lord, on whether I embrace your lordship's principles or your mistress." are long gone. Sadly.
I am rather tempted to setup the Illiberal Party... policies -
i) The abolition of the Commons. It has become fearfully common.
ii) The replacement of the House of Lords by a chamber of 300. To be the closest illegitimate descendants of a previous Sovereign. Service would be obligatory, disbarment only for grossly *decent* behaviour in a public place - lunatics and criminals being especially welcome.
iii) The Duke of Wellington will be appointed the Master of the Hats. He will judge the head gear of all in public life. Those guilty of wearing a bad hat will be sent to (mis) govern New South Wales, or other suitable places.
iv) Port will be the national drink - under heavy penalty for abstaining.
http://www.investors.com/politics/donald-trump-leads-hillary-clinton-with-more-states-in-play-ibdtipp-poll/
It's all margin of error stuff but I get a sense this may be moving Trump's way.
https://twitter.com/dznyc/status/795135993808568320
You see some of the analysis we get is based on comparing to 2012 exits, others with Catalist voter files. But the exits are possibly innacurate as Nate Cohn wrote;
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/10/upshot/there-are-more-white-voters-than-people-think-thats-good-news-for-trump.html?_r=2
For instance that 2012 exit would imply white voters made up less of the electorate than they did of the state demographics in 2012, which is a bit unlikely.
For Nevada the implications are interesting, since it would imply in 2012 Obama got more white dems than is assumed from the exits.
141
236
Trump 48.2
Clinton 42.6
Always puts a crease in Jack's cheeks.
The demographic assumptions could be torn asunder come Wednesday.
Guess you didn't have the balls to support your earlier claim...
Clinton only leading by 27% with Hispanics in New Mexico. Apparently......
The problem is that when trust in the establishment disintegrates the moderate voices lose their credibility and its the extremists who appear to be proven correct.
Now for the moderates to take back those five inches the best thing would be for moderation to be shown to be producing results.
In this case that means democracy being upheld and Britain leaving the EU after sensible negotiations followed by having a constructive relationship with the rEU afterwards.